Business next door makes porn version of our website

[Progressive]

Hello!

I'll make this as short as I can.

 

 

We moved into a unit 3 years ago, we already had a .co.uk website that was fully functional for 18 months at this point.

 

 

Just last Thursday my partner accidentally came across the listing for the .com version of our domain name,

listed as purchased by the owner of the business next door about a month after we moved in.

Renewed every year and currently owned by him.

 

 

The actual .com website however when typed in immediately redirected to an auto-playing hardcore homosexual porn video.

This appears to have been this way for the 3 years.

 

 

This is a very serious matter for us as we run a family business and get enquiries for children and parents all the time.

The shocker is that the neighbouring owner also runs a family business with massive focus on kids.

 

 

We posted apologies on social media to anyone that had seen it and named the owner and within about 6 hours the porn was taken down.

 

 

Since then we've been reported to social media for the posts (no action taken)

and had the police phone us telling us 'drop it or tears will be shed' (again though, no action taken).

 

 

We wish to take this matter to court, as the neighbouring business owner is a relentless bully

and has been campaigning to make our business suffer from the moment we took the unit

and has quite a large and expansive company in the area,

but now it seems he has finally done something with enough proof we can do something about it.

 

So, what's the next step?

[king12345]

Can you explain the reasons why the police told you that 'drop it or tears will be shed'?

[Progressive]

The police said that they had been informed (but no complaint made) of a potential conflict. They were 'advising' us because they said it looked like something that was going to escalate. I asked the police what criminal matter were they looking into, as if anyone would be calling the police it would be us? They then said that they weren't involved in the matter and wouldn't be. Bizarre! It's highly likely that (if this really was the police) that they know the business owner as he's been operating in the area for over a decade and has a large network of contacts through his type of business. But that is just guesswork.

[Sidewinder]

I would be writing to the Chief Constable and making a complaint about the threat which officers made to you.

 

IF it was genuinely the Police that contacted you then there should be a log - you could also ask for a copy of all records held about you under the DPA

 

Is there a cached copy of the website on Google? You should take screenshots, and get a copy of the domain registration info from WHOIS

[Progressive]

I'm not sure the police phone call could be classed as a threat as such (from them) as they were making it sound that it was in the interest of all parties that the matter was dropped, but I also don't fully believe it was a fully genuine call, more of an intimidation tactic (oh no, the police are involved! that kind of thing). We've got the data from whois already, but how do I get a cached copy of the website? I was thinking that the webmaster would have all the activity logs. The porn video was a redirect so not on the actual .com.

[Progressive]

I've just emailed the web hosting company asking for the activity log for the web site, hopefully that will give us the information we need.

[Progressive]

And I've just figured out how to get the cached version of the website, thank you! That worked a treat, I've made a screenshot of the result, it went straight back to the pornographic video. It was not very pleasant having to do a screen grab of that!

[Progressive]

I've just tried calling my business insurance but it doesn't seem that legal advice is covered in the policy. So what's my next step? Do I apply to the court or should I talk to a lawyer first?

[labrat]

Just as an aside if you use the wayback machine you may be able to get old versions of his site going back to when it started this may help as proof it's been on going not a once off

[Lucifa42]

I'm wondering, is there any illegal in this website though?

I'm not condoning it just trying to see what angle you can actually use to have it taken down or removed.

 

 

Other than the address of the website being similar (because of the difference in .co.uk and .com) is there any mention of your company in the .com website for instance?

 

Alternatively, is the name of your company a trademark? Or could you trademark it? That might give you an angle to use to claim ownership of the .com website.

 

Other than that, I'm not sure you have a case unless there is something I'm missing. But saying that, it doesn't stop you paying for a solicitors letter demanding they take it down - the owner might not know you don't have any power to do so and a threatening letter might scare him.

[Lucifa42]

Also, with some research there is an infamous example of this.

Whitehouse.com back in the late 90s and early 00s used to be full of adult content and understandably because of the name it was visited by people seeking out the website for the Executive branch of the US government (which is whitehouse.gov).

Despite threats, there was nothing the administration could do to get rid of the website so if the US government can't do anything about such a situation - I'm not sure you will be able to either unless as said, there's some evidence of defamation or infringment of trademark.

 

I realise obviously that laws differ between here and the US but you are dealing with a .com website which are governed to an extent by the US.

 

I should quickly point out too that whitehouse.com is now safe to visit, it has no adult content now - the website was sold about 10 years ago.

[BazzaS]

Also, with some research there is an infamous example of this.

Whitehouse.com back in the late 90s and early 00s used to be full of adult content and understandably because of the name it was visited by people seeking out the website for the Executive branch of the US government (which is whitehouse.gov).

Despite threats, there was nothing the administration could do to get rid of the website so if the US government can't do anything about such a situation - I'm not sure you will be able to either unless as said, there's some evidence of defamation or infringment of trademark.

 

I realise obviously that laws differ between here and the US but you are dealing with a .com website which are governed to an extent by the US.

 

I should quickly point out too that whitehouse.com is now safe to visit, it has no adult content now - the website was sold about 10 years ago.

 

"Passing off" is a complex area of law, and not one I feel competent to give a definitive answer, but I'm not sure the whitehouse.org / .gov situation is a fair comparator

 

There was a whitehouse magazine. It had traded for many years before they set up their .com site, so they could state it was an extension of their existing business and there was no intent to deceive (& people were unlikely to be confused between the two).

 

The OP's situation is different if the site was set up deliberately, to deceive / confuse, and to harm the OP's business, especially if the person who set it up had no pre-existing rights over the name / brand, and was "passing off" their website as the OP's website.

[Lucifa42]

I can't find any link between whitehouse.com and the magazine you mention. Whitehouse.com was owned by an american man who filled it with adult content and parodies of the US government and whitehouse magazine was a british publication. But we're arguing semantics really on that so lets leave it

 

You are right at the OP's situation is different, but only if such deceiving, infringing or passing off is in place on the website.

From the OP's description of the website - that it simply links off to a porn video - I can't see that it does but the OP would be need to confirm exactly what is on the .com website.

 

Of course the OP knows that the website has been setup because of their company, but that in itself is not illegal.

[SabreSheep]

Out of curiosity

 

What happened during your first month to cause him to buy the .com website to get at you?

[WebMaster]

Also, with some research there is an infamous example of this.

Whitehouse.com back in the late 90s and early 00s used to be full of adult content and understandably because of the name it was visited by people seeking out the website for the Executive branch of the US government (which is whitehouse.gov).

Despite threats, there was nothing the administration could do to get rid of the website so if the US government can't do anything about such a situation - I'm not sure you will be able to either unless as said, there's some evidence of defamation or infringment of trademark.

 

That's slightly different though, I guess. In the case of Whitehouse.com it was solely someone cashing in on confusion over the domain name. In this case the owner of the site is a neighbour, and the site wasn't set up for profit - it sounds as if it was set up solely to embarrass the OP. Does that not constitute harassment of some form? *shrug*

[Progressive]

Sorry about the delay in response! I'll answer questions now;

 

"Other than the address of the website being similar (because of the difference in .co.uk and .com) is there any mention of your company in the .com website for instance?

 

Alternatively, is the name of your company a trademark? Or could you trademark it? That might give you an angle to use to claim ownership of the .com website."

 

Other than the identical domain to our website, there is no direct mention. We run a gym, and the video was entitled 'Gay Weightlifters', but it was just a re-direct to the video, so he would have just searched until he found one that fit his criteria.

 

"What happened during your first month to cause him to buy the .com website to get at you?"

 

We moved into our respective units at the same time. We had to apply for planning permission to get change of use to turn it into a gym, and when he got the notification of our planning permission he put in an objection on the grounds that we were violent thugs and that we would attack his clients and cause a "bloodbath". At this stage we didn't even know who he was, as he had no signs up on his unit, and even when we knew, we still had had no prior contact with him or his company whatsoever. Basically it seemed that he viewed us as a direct rival (he's a tae kwon do school, we're a strength and conditioning gym that does powerlifting, strongman and obstacle racing. In other words, completely different) and wished to stop us. So we moved in, and as we were neighbours we tried to ignore his irrational attack on us and then tried to enrol our two boys (aged 3 and 5 at the time) in his kids program. He made a big scene in front of loads of people welcoming our boys, getting them excited. Their first lesson was due to be two weeks from then. So just two days before their first lesson he comes in our gym when no-one is around and tells us he refuses to train our boys on the grounds it's a "conflict of interest". We ask why and the best he could come up with was that he trains kids and that we're advertising that we also train kids. We explain that we now have to disappoint our boys after he wound them up but he didn't care. At this point my partner was also 8 months pregnant. I told him to get out as I was getting angry. I then posted my distaste at his behaviour and his ethics on facebook (complete with lots of angry swearing). That was the start of this lovely relationship....

[Progressive]

http://www.out-law.com/page-5700

 

So I've read a few bits and bobs, the link I've posted seems to contain the most amount of relevant information. The domain name for our website (and the .com he bought) is just our company name, and we've established a very good reputation on quite a reaching scale for our business name (through athletes we train and competitions we hold, like national titles) so it would seem I can prove bad faith purchasing, passing off, defamation etc.

 

So the question is, can I successfully sue this guy for what he's done?